The whole point of dark energy is to explain why the cosmos is expanding more than it theoretically should be. If it isn't, then you don't need dark energy, or if it isn't expanding as much as formerly believed then you don't need as much of it.

In this case, I mean literally... literally. You can find citations trivially. Everyone should know this by now. If you want to talk about Nazis, you should know something about Nazis.

"Remember, Na-Zi means National SOCIALIST, and that's that fascism is."

Remember, the Nazis literally called themselves socialists to fool stupid people, and you also don't know what either socialism or fascism is if you think one is a type of the other.

He wasn't a Nazi but George Washington did a genocide and was named "Town Killer" for it. And before someone points out that was his father, no, his father (who was also named George) ALSO did a genocide and was called the same thing for the same reason.

I'm fine with the repeated addition. My objection is the OR in your statement. Apparently not. The question was 5x3 and the kid wrote 5+5+5=15 and got marked wrong with no explanation because the teacher wanted 3+3+3+3+3=15. So I guess that you would have had a 50% chance of being marked wrong on a 2nd grade arithmatic worksheet as well, as absurd as that is. Correct answer notwithstanding.

BTW, that's not at all new. We covered multiplication that way in the 3rd grade back in 1975. Memorizing the table was just to make it quicker. I quickly "discovered" the commutative property while looking at the multiplication table and cut my memorization load in half. The part that confused the father was why is 5x3 = 5+5+5=15 "wrong".

As for 37+55, we decomposed that in the '70s as well, but I soon decided the easier decomposition was 37+55= 87+5 = 90+2=92. So I would say that meme was just someone wanting to complain. Of course the "old way" ends up in 30+50+10+2 anyway.

Shut up and memorize was not in practice during the education of the parents of today's students.

NT existed when IBM brought out at least two major versions of OS/2 without such features while NT had them, so... No.

No, but it would let people who care know, and it would let people who potentially care google and find out.

I would tend to assume that if you pay you get more, so it's just a trial version, and this is just an indirect slashvertisement.

I don't think creating a centralized world ID database is going to be a win at this point.

OS/2 had no security features needed for multiuser support. It might as well have been classic MacOS. Citrix had a multiuser version of OS/2 with security tacked on, but it wasn't a realistic solution and was never popular. Building an OS without security was the moronic decision that killed it. Plus IBM never did anything meaningful to promote it so nobody cared. That it was used anywhere (especially in ATMs) was a horrible decision itself because of the lack of security features and has created untold woes. Maybe nobody ever got fired because they bought IBM, but they should have.

It's wrong. The processor has a feature. People will reasonably assume they can use that feature. Then they find out it's disabled.

If that declaration is not in the largest font size used in the materials then it's hidden.

... I of course mean other citations than that quasi-fraudulent British lawsuit that started this nonsense myth back in the early 90ies or so.

No, because a surgeon can tell you WHY he washes his hands and point to the historical evidence for the practice. He won't say "God tells us to wash our hands".

I wouldn't call it a GOOD solution, more a default if nobody comes up with something better.

It would have reduced it to an extent that it would be as good as stopped.